As someone who is in favor of immigration reform and a 'path to citizenship' for those who entered illegally, it would not bother me to see this bill die. The 'path to citizenship' defined in the bill is extremely narrow so it wouldn't address the problem of people coming into the US illegally.

The point is for it to never be built. The 'path to citizenship' doesn't kick in until border security is in place. The strategy of this bill is to spend a lot of money on a project that cannot be completed that way, 1) congress can claim they implemented immigration reform, 2) contractors can soak the US out of billions for expensive project 3) no dirty Mexicans become citizens. See, everybody wins.

Republicans needed a giant wasteful jobs program added in to make them support the bill. No shocker there.

Personally, I don't care at all whether or not there is a path to citizenship for currently illegal people who came here as adults. I just want to see the path to legal residency for people who want to come here be shortened from "a decade or two" to "a few weeks." And to have currently illegal people start paying taxes.

The only immigration requirements should be:1) Don't be a dangerous criminal.2) Don't have any communicable diseases.3) Have enough money to cover the cost of verifying 1 & 2, and either 6 months of living expenses or a solid job offer.

That picture is the greatest example of why the Great Wall of Mexico will be a failure.Not because it caught that one car - but because you've never seen pictures of the cars that did manage to drive over.

Two minutes after that car got caught up, one of the guys that designed the ramp said "DOH! I totally should have seen that. OK, version 2 - put a car length of flat and level at the top." It's such a simple solution that you know it had to have been made - and no one's managed to catch one of those v2.0's on film that I know of.

Karac:Two minutes after that car got caught up, one of the guys that designed the ramp said "DOH! I totally should have seen that. OK, version 2 - put a car length of flat and level at the top." It's such a simple solution that you know it had to have been made - and no one's managed to catch one of those v2.0's on film that I know of.

Muta:The point is for it to never be built. The 'path to citizenship' doesn't kick in until border security is in place. The strategy of this bill is to spend a lot of money on a project that cannot be completed that way, 1) congress can claim they implemented immigration reform, 2) contractors can soak the US out of billions for expensive project 3) no dirty Mexicans become citizens. See, everybody wins.

You forgot 4) Businesses get cheap exploitable labor until some nebulous "Secure the border" requirement is met, the standards of which will consistently change or get pushed back in order to avoid having said businesses be required to treat the guest workers like citizens.

True. Imagine a fence in the middle of nowhere that you need to get over/through. You can bring any tools you want to the fence as long as they can fit in the back of a pickup. You will have up to 8 hours at a time undisturbed to work on breaking through the fence. Is there realistically any fence that's going to stop someone who is prepared and determined?

To make it truly effective it would have to be a concrete wall 30 feet tall and 10 feet thick, covered in razor wire. Or a mine field. The first option would cost a trillion dollars to build and cause environmental damage. The second option would get the US in hot water with the UN, not to mention that it's immoral to just blow people up for trying to find a job.

Muta:As someone who is in favor of immigration reform and a 'path to citizenship' for those who entered illegally, it would not bother me to see this bill die. The 'path to citizenship' defined in the bill is extremely narrow so it wouldn't address the problem of people coming into the US illegally.

Muta:Karac: Two minutes after that car got caught up, one of the guys that designed the ramp said "DOH! I totally should have seen that. OK, version 2 - put a car length of flat and level at the top." It's such a simple solution that you know it had to have been made - and no one's managed to catch one of those v2.0's on film that I know of.

V 2.0 was a tunnel.

I'm sure they still use the bridge concept. With a tunnel you've got to take the time to dig it out, figure out a way to keep it hidden as long as you can, and when it's discovered you've got to start all over again.

That bridge concept? You could prefabricate all the parts beforehand, and train a crew of guys to toss it up like a NASCAR pit crew. If you design it properly you might not even need any equipment, no forklifts or anything better than a giant air compressor on the back of a truck to run a few power tools.

It wouldn't have the bandwidth of a tunnel, but the initial investment in time and money would be much less.

Muta:As someone who is in favor of immigration reform and a 'path to citizenship' for those who entered illegally, it would not bother me to see this bill die. The 'path to citizenship' defined in the bill is extremely narrow so it wouldn't address the problem of people coming into the US illegally.

The path should be:

1) fill out a couple forms

2) learn some basic US history

3) stay felony free for 5 years

4) become a citizen

5) collect your flag pin

I would tweak 'felony-free' to include all crimes for which a felony penalty could be given.

Current immigration law looks at the actual sentencing total time in defining felony for the purposes of deportation and exclusion.

Heavier chain fencing adds time to an entry, meaning when the agent patrolling tge border gets to the entry point he is likely to be much closer to the group making entry. That means, all things being equal, agents can cover more ground.

True. Imagine a fence in the middle of nowhere that you need to get over/through. You can bring any tools you want to the fence as long as they can fit in the back of a pickup. You will have up to 8 hours at a time undisturbed to work on breaking through the fence. Is there realistically any fence that's going to stop someone who is prepared and determined?

To make it truly effective it would have to be a concrete wall 30 feet tall and 10 feet thick, covered in razor wire. Or a mine field. The first option would cost a trillion dollars to build and cause environmental damage. The second option would get the US in hot water with the UN, not to mention that it's immoral to just blow people up for trying to find a job.

Which fenced areas allow 8 hours time without an agent passing by?

Fencing isn't about stopping, it is about adding a time delay.

This is true of every security fence or wall in the world.

That said I have no issues with mocking our nation's policies which help keep central america a shiathole people want to flee, or piss off countries on the other side of the world such that they want to kill us.

I HATE LIBS:Have you libs ever figured out what will happen if an illegal doesn't jump through the hoops to become a citizen? What then libs?

Even though I'm not a "lib", I'll throw an answer at you. Why not, ya know?Probably the same thing that happens now. Except there will be different procedures in place to help them obtain citizenship, what they choose to do with more options is their prerogative (and the government's problem). Isn't it the GOP that's trying to institute and also destroy this current immigration reform bill anyway?

I had also seen 30 billion for the estimation of the cost over 10 years of hiring 20,000 more border patrol agents so I figured there was some mix up. Whether to trust Perry or not is another question I suppose :)

While I'm not huge on the concept of a locked down border, at least this bill has a semi-realistic shot at "securing" the border. I've always been annoyed at seeing politicians say they are for a secure border, then buy a couple of drones and still have areas with one agent covering 20 miles by himself (as is the case in stretches of desert just a few miles from I-10 west of El Paso). To some extent I am a fan of the go big or go home approach here.

I'd kind of like to see what would happen if we took steps to switch all of our outsourcing over to Mexico instead of other countries. Stop protecting every shipping channel with our Navy, treat some of our trading partners the way they treat us, and give an incentive to move X jobs from some countries to Mexico. Throw in an end to the drug war and in the long run that should be far more cost effective (and awesome for anyone who would like to enjoy a vacation to mexico). It could be done with just as many hand-outs to corporations as our politicians give now, simply redirecting them. But none of the politicians ask me.

I had also seen 30 billion for the estimation of the cost over 10 years of hiring 20,000 more border patrol agents so I figured there was some mix up. Whether to trust Perry or not is another question I suppose :)

While I'm not huge on the concept of a locked down border, at least this bill has a semi-realistic shot at "securing" the border. I've always been annoyed at seeing politicians say they are for a secure border, then buy a couple of drones and still have areas with one agent covering 20 miles by himself (as is the case in stretches of desert just a few miles from I-10 west of El Paso). To some extent I am a fan of the go big or go home approach here.

I'd kind of like to see what would happen if we took steps to switch all of our outsourcing over to Mexico instead of other countries. Stop protecting every shipping channel with our Navy, treat some of our trading partners the way they treat us, and give an incentive to move X jobs from some countries to Mexico. Throw in an end to the drug war and in the long run that should be far more cost effective (and awesome for anyone who would like to enjoy a vacation to mexico). It could be done with just as many hand-outs to corporations as our politicians give now, simply redirecting them. But none of the politicians ask me.

There's also this (from that article):

In 2009, the Congressional Search Service reported that the Department of Homeland Security had spent roughly up to $21 million per mile to build a primary fence near San Diego. The cost had ballooned as the fence extended into hills and gullies along the line.

The same year, Customs and Border Protection estimated costs of building an additional 3.5 miles of fence near San Diego at $16 million per mile. Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today.

These estimates do not include the costs of acquiring land, nor the expense of maintaining a fence that is exposed to constant efforts by illegal crossers to bore through it or under it or to bring it down. In March, Customs and Border Protection estimated it would cost $6.5 billion "to deploy, operate and maintain" the existing border fencing over an expected maximum lifetime of 20 years. The agency reported repairing 4,037 breaches in 2010 alone.